Quote note (#332)

Eli Lake on the Flynn flip:

In the end, it was Trump’s decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. [Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Devin] Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. “First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus,” he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree.

If there’s not much more to this than there looks, it’s hard to see it as anything but an unforced invitation to the hyenas. Or, turned around the other way, if Trump turns out to be anything like as incompetent as his opponents predict, he’s toast.

February 15, 2017admin 45 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Practicalities


45 Responses to this entry

  • Son_of_Olorus Says:

    It seems that the civil servants that are part of the establishment are going to battle it out with trump through his entire term- trump is going to be quite exceptional if he is going to fight through this unscathed – he will have to deal with a real threat of leakers undermining him with the support they will get from the media and elites. However a good man can never be undermined they’ll have go to after his subordinates, some who will not be used to this level of scrutiny.


    Posted on February 15th, 2017 at 2:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The Cathedral has found its new method: spy, reveal questionable information, then force cucking. They will use this to get to someone that they then hope to use to get to Trump, possibly with spurious charges of wrongdoing, because they really want this impeachment.


    August Hurtel Reply:

    A laser microphone aimed at the window. The story about the call with the Australian practically gives it away. They’ve got photographs through the window, and they wrote the damn article as if they were in the room. And there is technology that easily turns the line of sight necessary to get those photos into the line of sight necessary to overhear.

    There are aspects to Flynn I didn’t like, so it may end up being a good thing that he’s gone. I don’t like that he’s gone in this way, because it does seem like the sharks will now smell blood. On the flip side, they probably thought they were winning when Trump fired his campaign managers.

    i do hope he hires someone even more pro-Russia. We need to go in that direction, and it wouldn’t hurt to rub it in.


    Cryptogenic Reply:

    On day one there was surreptitious video of Trump talking on the phone within the whitehouse. It was recorded through a window. I immediately thought, who is/are the moles?


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    May be simply Deep State Theatre.


    Posted on February 15th, 2017 at 3:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation101 Says:

    “If there’s not much more to this than there looks, it’s hard to see it as anything but an unforced invitation to the hyenas. Or, turned around the other way, if Trump turns out to be anything like as incompetent as his opponents predict, he’s toast.”

    Well said. And yes, there is much more to this.

    I wrote the following:

    “Michael Flynn has been (politically) assassinated by the Deep State Polygon. Trump could perform a “Judo” move here. He now has the excuse to flush out his Deep State enemies and crush them. He could adopt a similar strategy to Mao. (Once thing about the left, is that they are the best when it comes to politics, because they understand power because that is their life’s purpose. The right, meanwhile, only view politics instrumentally and reluctantly. They enter politics only defensively – against the left. Trump, however, is a fighter. So, the next couple of weeks will be crucial – they will either make or break his administration.







    My reference to Mao is the “100 flowers bloom” affair.

    You can read what Mao said here:


    Admin once said that the role of the intelligence agencies was under-theorised in Nrx circles.

    We could begin with the following:


    The Mao “strategy” is to let the snakes come out of their holes. Let them come out, let them think they are winning. Then, strike.

    Trump could start an investigation into the “leaks”.

    Then, he could begin an investigation into Obama’s connection with Islamist.

    Then, he could begin an investigation in Clinton.

    Timing is crucial.

    Will he take them on, however?

    Does he understand what he is up against? Does Bannon?

    If a major terror attack happens on U.S soil, you can bet that he will get blamed because of his distrust of the intelligence agencies.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    » They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called “Communism.” It will be interesting to see what “enemy” develops in the years ahead. ” [L. Fletcher Prouty, Alexandria, VA 1997] »

    Wew, we got the answer to that now haven’t we?


    Posted on February 15th, 2017 at 4:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Space Ghost Says:

    Agree that it looks bad.

    *I* know that if *I* call some random dude in Russia, it’s getting recorded by the NSA. Are we to believe that career intelligence officer Michael Flynn didn’t know that his calls with a Russian ambassador would be recorded? Or did he think that Deep State goons wouldn’t feloniously leak the transcripts? Or did he really not think he was doing anything wrong / questionable / with bad optics?

    Hopefully Trump can use this to smoke out some spooks.


    Orthodox Reply:

    Flynn was fired because he lied to Pence, period. Had he told Pence, yes, I talked to the Russian ambassador, he would still be at his post.


    Posted on February 15th, 2017 at 4:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • pgbh Says:

    I don’t believe that Trump “caved in” to the opposition. It would be the first time he’s “caved in” since he announced his presidential campaign.

    And this line doesn’t make much sense: “…for a White House that has such a casual and opportunistic relationship with the truth, it’s strange that Flynn’s “lie” to Pence would get him fired. It doesn’t add up.”

    I don’t see the issue. Trump knows how to get power. Lying to people helps you get power. Letting people lie to you doesn’t help you do that, so he’s not going to allow that.


    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 1:38 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Curtis, frankly I am sick of your influence on the right. Your reinterpretation of history was pathetic. Truly. What were you doing? You were not on the side of Truth during your Unqualified Reservations escapade. I know you can sense that now though you won’t admit it. You have much too much faith in yourself. Remember the timeless warning against Hubris or you will be damned.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What are you talking about? Curtis Yarvin “Moldbug” directed at many deep authors and concepts, altho the valori-fetisation of him in the scene is probably quite conforming to trendiness characteristic of the human-all-too-human.


    By the way; I wonder if Marx isn’t intuiting Virtual Reality here? :

    » The abstract enmity between sense and spirit is necessary so long as the human feeling for nature, the human sense of nature, and, therefore, also the natural sense of man, are not yet produced by man’s own labour. »

    Where would man produce through labour wholly his sense of “nature” but through engulfing himself with the Virtual?

    Kurzweil already produces his nature in a virtual Reality.

    Marxist though make the mistake of blaming exclusively commodification on soi-disant capitalism, when actually commodification is inherent to ‘all’ homo Mechanicus activities, as seen in the Soviet Union, for example.


    Wagner Reply:

    What he did for the right is invaluable, he’ll always be one of the gods in my pantheon, but he significantly undermined the potential for a neo-nazi restoration, or as I prefer to think of it, a Dionysian Revival. UR to my understanding (and I love the synchronicity of ur- but I digress) aimed to do two things that necessarily interlocked: relativize (whig) history and supplant it with his brand of Reactionism (and I say the word “brand” with all deprecation possible, the man strongly comes across to me as a corporate fraud). He was much more sympathetic to Nazi Germany than the gainstream media would ever have been in a hundred years without his influence, and his, as it were, hymns to Nazism, were fairer and more moderate (in the virtuous sense) than anything the buffoons on Stormfront or whatever it’s called were crap-posting in their forums about, but nevertheless I think he could have been a lot more daring in his evaluation. Granted he was writing at the wane of the Bush era (idk if as an Icelander you know what Americans thought of Bush toward the end but it wasn’t pretty) and the beginning of Obama’s regime so, whether he wanted to or not, he HAD to be a little milquetoast or he a.) wouldn’t have enjoyed such an early readership or b.) would’ve literally been carted off to the gulags (which in ‘Murica we call “prison”). Land himself in the recent interview said that NRx was a prophecy of the burgeoning alt-right. As a lowbrow cretin like myself who is a champion of Aristocracy I am aligned with this project to nip the alt-right in the bud, but at the same time I sense that our admirable admin (this is sarcasmless, truly) and his advocacy of “Anglo-American values” is an unwitting confession that he cannot escape his own genetics. I am worried that the Cathedral is going to merely be replaced by the same old crypto-tyrannical horse-puckey, is all. I can’t escape my genes either, I’m just sayin’. Maybe I am a salty, no-good, ressentiment-imbued, yahooing antisemite redneck after all but I have a grave hunch that this is a more or less accurate snapshot of Moldbug’s genes: http://imgur.com/reLdwNx


    Wagner Reply:

    My impetus for all this is in part the conviction that Heidegger was wiser than Moldbug FYI. If these images don’t redpill ye on this I don’t know what will:







    And there are a lot more where that comes from! (Hey at least I’m an erudite redneck). If you want more, ask.

    Da Nazis wuz Ancient Athenians n sheeit. Anglo-Jewry is SPARTA.

    “For the Being of the people, as a human way of Being, space is not simply surroundings, or an indifferent container. When we investigate the people’s Being-in-space, we see that every people has a space that belongs to it. Persons who live by the sea, in the mountains, and on the plains are different. History teaches us that nomads have not only been made nomadic by the desolation of wastelands and steppes, but they have also often left wastelands behind them where they found fruitful and cultivated land—and that human beings who are rooted in the soil have known how to make a home for themselves even in the wilderness… For a Slavic people, the nature of our German space would definitely be revealed differently from the way it is revealed to us; to Semitic nomads, it will perhaps never be revealed at all.”


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I’m in the process of looking at those. Probably nothing new to me specifically as I was a National-Socialist when I was a younger man. As for the complexities of americanism and technocraticism, and their similarities with bolshevism or sovietism as the latter turned out in Russia, indeed, as the book you link to, «History of Political Philosophy» first published 1963 says, » The reality of Americanism is the industrial complex, the central agency of economic and technological planning, which organizes the labor of the common man …», and which Land dealt with in «The ‘F’ Word», I got woke on at the latest in the late naughties through reading «Men Among the Ruins» (1953).

    In fact statements like » Marxism is likewise not merely a party or a world-view, but is the elevation of the process of production to predominance and the consequent reduction of man to a socially produced being. » look like they could be straight out of Evola. We’re simply saying that to point out that they reached, precisely enough, the same conclusions.

    » Both Marxism and Americanism misconstrue the human spirit as calculative intelligence ». Then one can say that the majority of so-called NRx are Americanists. Indeed, Land is obviously still a Marxist in many ways.

    But who isn’t? Marxs’ is a brilliant writer.

    I think calculative intelligence is an aspect of the human spirit tho, maybe a central factor. I’m not a romanticist.

    In fact, I would say Marx’s essential reading along with Evola, as is Baudrillard, and all the frenchies! And the Frankfurters.

    Funny: — when we were young fascists or traditionalists, or at least thought we were fascists or traditionalists, we used to think the so-called post-modernists and Marxists were little but utopianist ramblers. They were the baddies. Now I can see that they add to Evola, and he to them.

    Embrace transcendental onto-Bannonismo!

    Wagner Reply:

    You may have heard his points before but the point is that one of, if not THE, greatest philosopher of the 20th century was a card-carrying Nazi who uttered the words “Heil Hitler” to an audience of youth. This is enough of a historico-philosophical factoid to scramble Moldbuggism, though I concede not fully dissolve it. I really think I dropped a nuke on this blog by sharing those images so try to read them carefully if you trust me. “I know I’ve dug myself into a dismissed-by-name situation.” Same, brother–I think you, me and michael conflict with the orderfulness here and are dismissed on that ground alone, i.e. not because we’re wrong but because we create chaos, and lazy bronze-souls prefer to be fashionable dogmatists. But hey, to their credit, it’s a talent to be able to windshield-wipe rain.

    “, but I also know that my genius can get me out of it” – a wise man once said (I forget which one) to do rather than say.

    Hm so you think calculativeness is a defining feature of NRx plebs? Lol jk, I’ve already said I greatly value Erebus’s calculativeness (as far as genocidal maniacs go he’s about as classy as they come)… But what do you mean by romanticism, Erikson? And what is the opposite of calculativeness exactly? If you want to get real “buckwild” as literal rednecks say, what is the medium between calculativeness and its opposite (assuming romanticism is the excessive version of its opposite)?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    » The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe ».

    The Nazis did this. Meanwhile the Anglos (Blue fascists) were calculative. They didn’t go in for a romantic attack, but waited until the Red fascists (Slavs) and the Brown fascists (Deutch) had reduced each other’s numbers, strength & supplies.

    » The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history. » Though never engaged in military action in the Eastern Front, the United Kingdom and the United States both provided substantial material aid in the form of the Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union. »

    Can’t really blame Hitler, he really had a shot there for a while. Almost got Moscau. Harsh Russian winter got him like it got Napoleon. It was unusually harsh that time.

    He should’ve just charged straight from France to there, not waited. He’d have gotten them then, one can speculate. Only Poland separates Germany from the eastern territories, and he already had half of it. He somehow underestimated Stalin.

    The dumbest thing was to have gotten into a war with both the Soviets and the Anglosemitic Powers at the same time.

    As for Heidegger, he’s a little on the Evola side of Hitler. However, he seems to have a small reach for someone who wants to awaken the volk. In that text you shew, he says probably the only way is a religious awakening — yet he uses no religious language?

    Even someone like McLuhan was a deep Catholic, or Tolkien, and they had far greater reach — to the “volk” anyway.

    I’m all ears.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Dear Wagner, you could counter to that reach isn’t necessarily important for our specific purposes as we might develop even the very useful from the quite obscure.

    The above was said to relate that I wonder what is attractive about Heidegger’s other than a nihilist meme. You already answered that on twitter, but in a subjective way.

    Perhaps you could present some words of his?

    Wagner Reply:

    Heidegger is the pre-eminent thinker on nihilism after Nietzsche. As I told Stevens after he published his book, nihilism is a higher problem than anything political–therefore N and H dwarf MM who is primarily a political philosopher. This is from H’s response to Junger’s Across the Line:

    “[T]he only way in which we might reflect upon the essence of nihilism is by first setting out on a path that leads to a discussion of the essence of being. On this path alone can the question concerning the nothing be discussed… In addition, however, we must not have scant regard for a discussion of the essence of nihilism, and may not do so for the very reason that nihilism has the tendency to dissemble its own essence and thereby to withdraw from the all-decisive encounter and confrontation with it.”

    Reading H is almost interchangeable with zazen meditation–almost but not quite. Still, it takes a lot of immersion to get a handle on his jargon (as Adorno called it). I’ve been reading him about 7 years and still am unable to speak Heideggerese (like some profs I’ve met), the man is truly a mountain of a thinker. Being and Time is his greatest work. Here is a little slice of it to whet your appetite:

    “The Self of everyday Dasein is the they-self […] As they-self, the particular
    Dasein has been dispersed into the ‘they’, and must first find itself. This
    dispersal characterizes the ‘subject’ of that kind of Being which we know as
    concernful absorption in the world we encounter as closest to us. […] Dasein is for the sake of the ‘they’ in an everyday manner, and the “they” itself articulates the referential context of significance. When entities are encountered, Dasein’s world frees them for a totality of involvements with which the ‘they’ is familiar, and within the limits which have been established with the ‘they’s’ averageness. […] Proximally Dasein is ‘they’, and for the most part it remains so. […]

    As something factical, Dasein’s projection of itself understandingly is in each case already alongside a world that has been discovered. From this world it takes its possibilities, and it does so first in accordance with the way things have been interpreted by the ‘they’. This interpretation has already restricted the possible options of choice to what lies within the range of the familiar, the attainable, the respectable – that which is fitting and proper. This leveling off of Dasein’s possibilities to what is proximately at its everyday disposal also results in a dimming down of the possible as such. The average everydayness of concern becomes blind to its possibilities, and tranquilizes itself with that which is merely ‘actual’.”

    Here from the horse’s mouth on his magnum opus, and where the French void-dryhumpers go wrong:

    “What is developed in Being and Time as “destruction” is not a dismantling in the sense of a demolishing. It is a *purification* aimed at laying bare the basic metaphysical positions. Yet all of that is mere prelude with respect to the carrying out of the resonating and interplay.” – This is from what is regarded as his second most important work after Being and Time: Contributions to Philosophy (of the Event) aka one of the most obscurantist texts I’ve come across but one that contains tons of gems:

    “The age of the complete absence of questioning tolerates nothing questionable and destroys all solitude… This age of the complete absence of questioning can be overcome only through an age of simple solitude, in which preparedness for the truth of be-ing itself is being prepared.”


    “In the age of total lack of questioning anything, it is sufficient as a start to inquire into the question of all questions.
    In the age of infinite needing that originates according to the hidden distress of no-distress-at-all, this question necessarily has to appear as the most useless jabbering–beyond which one has already and duly gone.
    Nevertheless the task remains: to restore beings from within the truth of be-ing.
    The question of the “meaning of being” is the question of all questions.”

    See, this guy isn’t just “some guy”. Many gibbering dwarves have tried to convince themselves that such a genius was in error politically:

    “Like many others, Pöggeler is disturbed by the fact that Heidegger can mourn the deaths of those German soldiers “sacrificed before their time through two World Wars,” yet cannot bring himself to utter a word of contrition concerning the millions who died in Nazi concentration camps. He, too, is dismayed that Heidegger, when questioned in the 1966 Der Spiegel interview about future political prospects, “formulated a consistent renunciation of all hopes that were placed in democracy.” He cites Heidegger’s infamous observation from What is Called Thinking? (1951-52) to the effect that the outcome of the Second World War “has decided nothing” as far as “the essence of humanity” is concerned. But, here, Heidegger was misguided–incredibly so. For if ever there was a war that resulted in an outcome that was decisive for the “essence of humanity,” it was World War II, where fascism was laid to rest in Europe as a viable political option.” – Richard Wolin, The Heidegger Controversy

    Land called Heidegger’s Nietzsche “ponderous” in Thirst for Annihilation but meh he was just trying to shatter the hegemony H has had on N reception (which is a real problem). As an interpreter of Nietzsche this is a microcosm of his hermeneutic:

    “World game, the ruling force
    blends false and true
    the eternally fooling force
    blends us–in too.”


    “Nietzsche is himself blended into the game of metaphysics.”


    Always turning N on his head like N did to Plato. (Heidegger is himself blended into the game of metaphysics heh heh and so’m I).

    Here’s Heidegger as a proto anti Cathedral shitlord:

    “… the “type” of the contemporary “professor,” the archetype of a lack of character: seizing any opportunity to court prestige, with a complete lack of sincerity regarding the question of truth, dancing around the cut-price golden calf of “results” and “research records,” and all this with puffed-up “cleverness.””

    An example of Heidegger’s hyperborean coldness:

    “After 1945, Heidegger barely referred to the Holocaust at all, save to note that the mechanisation of its production methods set a poor example for postwar German agriculture.” – Malcolm Bull

    As a metaphysical mindfucker (like usual):

    “The respective political systems, the democratic, fascist, bolshevist systems and their hybrids are nothing but facades… [P]ower, even if it brings savagery and intemperateness and atrocity in the wake of its bursting forces, is not simply something spiritual—but above spirit and soul and body—above and beyond any single being and it is foremost an essential being of Being itself.”

    As anti-philosopher:

    “All too well versed in the commonness of what is multiple and entangled, we are no longer capable of experiencing the strangeness that carries with it all that is simple.”

    As monk-like:

    “In his later work, Heidegger spoke about thinking as *thanking*–humbly celebrating that we exist at all upon the earth, beneath the sky, in the company of other beings.” – Richard Capobianco (check out this prof’s youtube vids on H, they’re great)

    As a political philosopher (rare):

    “A leader does not need to be educated politically… Every leader IS a leader; he must be a leader in accordance with the marked form of his Being; and he understands, considers, and brings about what people and state are, in the living development of his own essence.”

    Here’s Leo Strauss on Heidegger, for all the neocon SOPHISTS out there:

    “Heidegger is the only man who has an inkling of the dimensions of the problem of a world society.”

    Here’s H from a text marginalized by philosophy academics:

    “It has been said that Hegel died in 1933; on the contrary, it was only then that he began to live.” (LMFAO)

    Jonathan Bowden has a grrrreat! lecture on Heidegger on youtube:

    “Heidegger decided in 1933 to join the Nazi Party, to join the National Socialist German Workers Party and gave lectures for a year in his university in full Nazi uniform; and was involved with all of the party Gauleiters and other figures in his area to the shock and horror and consternation of much of the academic elite that he was associated with. And don’t forget that Heidegger did this for purely speculative and theoretical reasons. Heidegger had no concern with doctrines of race, no concerns with doctrines of conspiracy, no concerns with politics at all. Politics was irrelevant in relation to placing man before death, which is what life was about. And what he loved about this movement was that he thought it was a primordial movement that was bringing back, almost in an occultistic way, the partiality towards death, and in some ways it was bringing back the ancient world with modern technology. That’s why he reached out to it. […] In the hut in the woods where he wrote Being and Time and where he wrote other books on Greek tragedy and on Nietzsche, Celan and Heidegger have this talk… And Celan says, “Why did you join the Nazi Party?” And Heidegger replies, “Because they were the one movement of the 20th century that, in my terms, had a tragic view of life. That had a view of life which is actually the motif and the inner essence—Dasein—of the Greek tragedians taken up to date two and a half thousand years later.””

    If you want more quotes, ask.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    He looks like an aspect of Evola put into neo-lingo.

    Wagner Reply:

    I hate to say this kind of thing because it is extremely dark, which is to say intimate, but sometimes I think that our first philosopher, or first couple philosophers, imprint us, deflower our abyss in a way, and from then on we look at other philosophers through their lens no matter what.

    But I want to escape this capture-of-freedom. Tell me what I should read of Evola to break me out of the N/H spell/cycle.

    For you I recommend Heidegger’s “Hölderlin’s Hymns “Germania” and “The Rhine”” (assuming you haven’t read B&T).


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    «Men Among the Ruins» is his easiest read, and the one I’d recommend for access. After that «Ride the Tiger» and «Revolt Against the Modern World».

    As for the similarities, incidentally Bowden did a lecture on Evola as well, but here we go:

    “The respective political systems, the democratic, fascist, bolshevist systems and their hybrids are nothing but facades… [P]ower, even if it brings savagery and intemperateness and atrocity in the wake of its bursting forces, is not simply something spiritual—but above spirit and soul and body—above and beyond any single being and it is foremost an essential being of Being itself.”

    Evola wrote an essay titled «Man as Power» (1925). He was influenced by the neotantrik Sir John Woodroffe (1865-1936), who wrote «The World as Power» (1922). Briefly said, E viewed the world as power. Man interacted with this power through rites, but rites are symbols ; or as plebes would say: rites are symbolic. Incidentally, symbolon means ‘throw together’. Every community has rites/customs, something that throws them, “binds” them—puts them anyway—together as a being in being. So different rites or symbols can put you into different states of being. Right? That’s even what capitalism is and does — it’s rites that put foward a certain (state of) being.

    By the way, Hegel was deeply influenced by alchemy. There are at least two books on that («Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition» & ?). Evola however is one of the most multi-dimensional thinkers ever, so it isn’t surprising that one finds his similitude in others.

    I could do a quote by quote comparison of E’s & H’s similarities, but let it suffice that when reading your quotations I in most cases experienced similar descriptions from E appear in mind. The ones on leaders and “education” are the most obvious.

    » The beginning is what man lacks. It is not that it is difficult for him to find it. It is precisely the preconceived idea of having to find it that becomes a stumbling block. Life is generous; at every instant it gives us a new beginning. Every second we are confronted by the question: “Who am I?” We do not ask it, and this is why we do not find the beginning. But if for once we were to take it seriously, a new day would arise, whose dusk would spell death for those thoughts that have infiltrated the royal palace and now sponge at the table of our souls. The coral reef that these thoughts have diligently created in the course of millennia and which we call “our body” is their work and the place where they dwell and breed. If we really want to reach the open sea, we must first open a breach in this reef of glue and lime, and then redissolve it into the spirit that it originally was. »

    Wagner Reply:


    Idk if this post will turn out right because my laptop h Or is this “Skynet’s” doing?as been jeopardized by some kind of bug (Depp State is that you? If so, real cute.)

    Would Evola escape Heidegger’s criticism of traditionalism unscathed?
    I know he has a critique of Heidegger somewhere; I haven’t read it yet.d Evola

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Evola is not a “philosopher” nor a “traditionalist.”

    He’s just a guy who did his best in trying to present traditions older than history.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This probably behoves ex-planation.

    E is not into mythology as such, but what the mythos would transmit. What they transmit depends on what race, really, what type of man. I.e. caste and race. Race is really just another word for ancestry or the physical/sociophysical traits of ancestry).

    What for? It presents a way of living in which you are not lost, not seeking, but know who you are. I.e. ‘I am this man, son of these people and we do this.’ (It doesn’t have to be the cliché of the strict bad father, who tries to force his son to become what dad wants. « We do this » can simply mean, we do smart things.) So with successful transmission, you have no need to have a teenage rebellion, sniff glue or spend your life as a Commie. Or try some other progressivism.

    It also means that women don’t spend their lives childless blathering on about whatever floats through their narcissistic minds for likes online and the dick carousal.

    Not only that but there’s a deeper dimension in tradition. Such as what Aleister Crowley writes about. This gets into a level few can access. It’ll just look like solipsism or magical thinking to the very sub-caste.

    Pejoratively a “traditionalist” is one who likes the external forms more than what they are the flowering of. It’s like a soi-disant “cultist” in a music scene: the accessories become more important than the music.

    Wagner Reply:

    This gets into a level few can access. It’ll just look like solipsism or magical thinking to the very sub-caste.”

    My screen is black for the most part (real cute) but I would be interested in you divulging this as explicitly as possible.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ” THE dread doubt that seizeth the beholders when a man passeth away, so that one sayeth, ‘ He still is, ‘ and another, ‘ No, he is no more ‘ I would know the truth of this, taught by thee, O Death ! This I crave as the third of the three boons thou promised ! ”

    This is the boon that Nachiketa asked of Yama, Master of Death, Judge of departed souls. And Yama shrank from the great task imposed on him and answered : ” Even the gods have suffered from this doubt, and very subtle is the science that resolveth it. Ask thou another boon ! Besiege me not with this. Take all the pleasures that the earth can give ; take undivided sovereignty of it ! “

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    How are you prepared to fight decadence in the Weimar? Will your expropriation of non-Aryan assets be more throughly realized than the previous regime, Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS?


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It’s utterly plebeian to associate the term ‘aryan’ merely with the Nazis. Just might as well write for SPLC.

    If you think British pseudo-capitalism didn’t expropriate, you’re misinformed.

    And if you think dog-eat-dog IQ-niggerism will rule the day,

    again, you´re misinformed.

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 1:55 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    @ Wagner et al, That picture (which you link to of Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild appearing domineering to the son of the queen, the future king of England), is akin to the fact that all “elected” “national leaders” have to have a ceremony at Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild’s house around the time inauguration.

    It was in this inoccuous Channel 4 documentary, IIRC: https://youtu.be/b0su39y7QOM

    A must watch. It confirms the content of some of my most recent comments.

    I agree with Dr. Land that we are in a simulation, the reality of people is just that absurd.

    The normies think in meme-clouds, so it’s entirely possible to occlude just about anything their optic periphery. They think by association (ATH), so they’ll dismiss things by rather predictable routes, as well as accept them as fact.

    I know I’ve dug myself into a dismissed-by-name situation, but I also know that my genius can get me out of it.

    Genius—as in tutelary spirit.

    Speaking of normie memetics, or as some would say “Jesuit mind-control” I just about received this from my dear friend Lord Scholar Matthew Smallwood : » I had read something of Steiner’s on the Jesuit order – I don’t know much about it, but it seemed possible, given the milieu of the time, and the desperation of the Church: they were not without resources in that area. Geomancy, for instance, seems to have been fairly well known within certain aristocratic clerical circles; additionally, the Church had contact with that stuff, as they were generally combating it. The Maranos in Spain (Cervantes was one, of course, along with Torquemada) and the Islamic influence (the Magian worldview) would have made Spain a kind of weird hothouse for clandestine utilization of magic by the Church. Whatever is most suppressed is also most fixated on, to some degree. I would have to research that, but the claim was made that Jesuitic circles had figured out certain ways of imprinting the astral world in a way so as to influence trends in the mental environment which was emerging, particularly in the New World (and with primitive consciousness). The Catholic Church had a lot of experience with that anyway, through the conversion process of Europe. Much of it may have been done unintentionally. It is most certainly a thread that would probably yield a rope, and then a chain. If I come across anything else, I certainly will let you know. The topic is interesting because as you know the Buddhists expect the Maeitreya and the Hindi the Kalki Avatar, the two sides of man-God, if put together, and Steiner thought the second coming would be “etheric”: if there is an AntiChrist, since there is one, it might have something to do with misusing or misordering subtle forces prematurely or for stunted ends. … »

    It’s all hyperstitional, after all.


    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 11:35 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    » One day the millions of China and Mongolia, heathen and Muslims, furnished with every murderous weapon invented by civilization, and forced upon the Celestial of the East, by the infernal spirit of trade and love of monetary gain of the West, drilled, moreover, to perfection by Christian man-slayers—will pour into and invade decaying Europe like an irrepressible torrent. This will be the result of the work of the Jesuits, who will be its first victims, let us hope. »

    said H.P. Blavatsky in «Lucifer», Vol II. London, June 15th, 1888.



    Posted on February 17th, 2017 at 1:08 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    As for romanticism: » emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe ». It is not that the Nazis were exclusive in doing this. Not that the Anglos do not do this in their horror-rites such as in « Skull & Bones », behind lock and key. To mention only the, as it were, least. If such societies have any public rites, is a matter of, as it were, debate.

    The question obviously isn’t whether secret societies exist, but how secretive or not a particular society is ; including the general public society, and the societies that construct on it. For those ruined by plebeian thought: society means basically when people come together for whatever purpose. Secret means e.g. that not everything is open to everyone ; from Latin secretus “set apart, withdrawn; hidden, concealed, private.” E.g. in a sense, families, to different degrees, are secret societies. Some very much so. The category of Royal Secrets is the akin to the one of State Secrets, while the former was more about intra-familial, matters ; we should not underestimate dynastic matters in the latter.

    What is the case is that a number of power-lines are supra-national, have mastered memetics, and can deploy armies. Obviously.

    Russian Empire only fell because of certain approvals from certain power-lines, one can imagine.


    Posted on February 18th, 2017 at 5:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Murza Bad Says:

    Trump is like an inverted Nixon, where the latter was an insecure, substance abusing, paranoiac with a formidable knowledge of how government works; Trump is a naively confident teetolar who has put too much trust in an establishment hack like Reince Priebus.


    Posted on February 18th, 2017 at 10:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Giuliano Says:

    G Eiriksson, I know we are recently fomented internet buddies, but your inability to pick up on my mocking tone (which I should have openly addressed as a provocation toward Wagner) has brought me enormous discomfort.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Oh I quite picked up on that. And I answered your mockery — don’t kvetch about it. And best not get yourself into uncomfortable situations, eh?

    Any teenager can mock, but what I am interested in is argumentation.


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I don’t kvetch, I kibitz. Apologies. I misconstrued your post. When I read the letters SPLC I don’t think ‘Southern Poverty Law Center.’ They could just as well be an abbreviation for a bottom-rung blog for uncultivated neo-Nazis. I would love to debate you. Just so we get this straight: you are not a neo-Nazi, right?
    Otherwise, I’ll have to feign neo-Stalinism to place us on an equal footing.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I don’t remember seeing you comment here before, really. I’m gonna partially assume this is Mr. Land through a sockpuppet.

    Am I a neo-Nazi? Considering the type, often seen, I find their narrow focus boring. They’re not doing much intellectual work. Even sub-par to the Nazis themselves («The Myth of the Twentieth Century» is a brilliant work. Enlightening overview of history).

    Also, they’re absurdly & pathologically against Jews.

    I got to know a Jew in Iceland, who’s American. He’s a computer science student in the university here. He’s literally one of the nicest persons I’ve ever met. It’s not a facade. He’s blue eyed, giving, polite, friendly, and he let me sleep in his room while he was away. I’m very adamant about physiognomy, and picking up on things I dislike in people. This guy scores AAA. He has the type of Jewish head that is like Einstein’s, the big cerebral one type o Jew.

    Anyone who can’t distinguish between a Podesta and an Einstein, just because they’re jews, is held by a hamartia. A pathology, really.

    Sciences have come so far that we can literally tell by somatic features if a person is by a narrow margin good.

    If she’s likely to be subversive or not, criminal or not. Just requires some Judge Dredd moral censure. And don’t give me no rant about pseudo-Nietzschean social darwinist amorality. Unless it’s some Johannesburg “capitalism,” it doesn’t function properly without ideas about what is right and wrong. Right?

    I am an authoritarian Capitalist ; I want like Singapore, but with nec plus ultra conservatism as a significant part of it. Consider that my patch. That’s like conservative Jews, they don’t chose wives, they get them assigned. Not that I cannot get a girl, quite the contrary — it’s easier than ever, for some of us.

    Getting one assigned is maybe going too far for some people; asking the father for the hand or buying a woman should suffice.


    I have a hard time seeing whites not disappear quickly (the continuing trend) without them starting to operate women as mothers again. They’re simply not going to compete with r-biostrategy hordes otherwise. France’s teenagers are already 25% Muslim. Does anyone realise how crazy that is?

    I don’t see how some of so-called NRx isn’t going for some feminist “cyberpunk” favella-city.

    Posted on February 19th, 2017 at 10:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Giuliano Says:

    The prosecution may rest. I am satisfied that you are no neo-Nazi.

    I’m glad you can get women. I guess you are sort of like Alceste in Moliere’s Misanthrope.

    I’m an anti-humanist. For me, a leftist’s folly is not that he reads Rousseau, but that he doesn’t read La Mettrie.

    What you said to me is anyone can mock, you are looking for argumentation. What I say to you is anyone can argue, I am looking for (Rortian) irony.


    Wagner Reply:

    I’ve only recently been getting into Rousseau. I like him. He does say hare-brained things on occasion though, like this:

    “It follows from all this that the general will is always in the right and always works for the public good; but it doesn’t follow that the people’s deliberations are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we don’t always see what that is; the populace is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and then—but only then—it seems to will something bad… How can a blind multitude, which often doesn’t know what it wills because it rarely knows what is good for it, carry out for itself such a great and difficult enterprise as a system of legislation? The populace left to itself always wills the good, but left to itself it doesn’t always see what that is. The general will is always in the right, but the judgment that guides it isn’t always enlightened. It ought to be
    •made to see objects as they are, and sometimes as
    they ought to appear to it;
    •shown the good road it is in search of,
    •secured from the seductive influences of individual
    •taught to look carefully at other places and times, and
    •made to weigh the attractions of present and sensible
    advantages against the danger of distant and hidden

    What the crap is this????

    “the populace is never corrupted, but it is often deceived”

    “The general will is always in the right, but the judgment that guides it isn’t always enlightened.”

    The French rabble must have read this and thought Durr we not corrupted we always right Hurr hurr off wit dare heads!

    Ressentiment is the difference between rebellion and rabblion.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Had never heard of the dude I think

    » The Theological Uses of Rortian Ironism

    David E. McClean

    Department of Philosophy
    Molloy College
    Rockville Centre, NY

    Abstract: Richard Rorty can be accused of many things, but “theologian” is not one of them. I will not now so accuse him. However, his liberal ironism suggests a way to an epistemologically deflated yet perfectly tenable theology and form of religiosity – which I call minimalist religion – that is useful for a world whose peoples, and their ideas, are being thrust together as never before. The notion of a Rorty-informed theology is counter-intuitive, in view of Rorty’s long antipathy toward religion, but when one considers that the ironism he sketches is a form of faith, the possibility of grafting it into a minimalist religiosity becomes intriguing, especially if one assumes, as does this author, that the religious impulse is here to stay. »

    But yeah, anyone with thought in his mind can argue, but few can argue well. E.g. even at this site MDs use rhetoric like “HA! You have a long beard ? Nobody takes people with long beards seriously anymore. Go take some pills and commit suicide. You’re nothing if you’re not very high on the late atheist conformist treadmill.”

    Cold feelz for an iron age!


    Wagner Reply:

    crypt can’t grow a beard so he demands everyone be clean-shaven. Muh bank account! Muh honor! I suppose every forum needs its whipping-boy.


    Posted on March 1st, 2017 at 6:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Giuliano Says:


    Heaven’s Gate is a good example of the general will, with Marshall Applewhite as lawgiver.


    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 3:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Ha! Nice metaphor. I still wonder though if this “general will” talk was a symptom. Were kings just sham-kings? This from Carlyle’s Frederick has made me guffaw a few times:

    “To me the Eighteenth Century has nothing grand in it, except that grand universal Suicide, named French Revolution, by which it terminated its otherwise most worthless existence with at least one worthy act;–setting fire to its old home and self; and going up in flames and volcanic explosions, in a truly memorable and important manner. A very fit termination, as I thankfully feel, for such a Century. Century spendthrift, fraudulent-bankrupt; gone at length utterly insolvent, without real money of performance in its pocket, and the shops declining to take hypocrisies and speciosities any farther:–what could the poor Century do, but at length admit, “Well, it is so. I am a swindler-century, and have long been,–having learned the trick of it from my father and grandfather; knowing hardly any trade but that in false bills, which I thought foolishly might last forever, and still bring at least beef and pudding to the favored of mankind. And behold it ends; and I am a detected swindler, and have nothing even to eat. What remains but that I blow my brains out, and do at length one true action?” Which the poor Century did; many thanks to it, in the circumstances.”

    If only they did Carlyle monographs on Comedy Central.

    Sovereignty is conserved, right?, so what we’re experiencing now is the sovereignty of progressivism blowing its brains out and oh is it beautiful.


    Posted on March 3rd, 2017 at 5:14 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:


    I’ve only recently been getting into Rousseau. I like him. He does say hare-brained things on occasion though, like this: […] the populace is never corrupted, but it is often deceived

    Dude, this is like str8 outta Hitler.


    Wagner Reply:

    Nice catch, I didn’t make that connection. Is there a straight line from the French Revolution to Nazi Germany? As an aside, Bloom in his intro to Emile sums up the woman question from Rousseau’s perspective in a way I think you’d appreciate:

    “Emile’s discovery of his Sophie in the country is the occasion for Rousseau’s discourse on the differences between the sexes and their proper relations. No segment of Emile is more “relevant” than is this one nor is any likely to arouse more indignation, for Rousseau is a “sexist”. The particular force of Rousseau’s argument for us comes from the fact that he begins from thoroughly modern premises–not deriving from Biblical or Greek thought–and arrives at conclusions diametrically opposed to those of feminism. Furthermore, his analysis is unrivaled in its breadth and precision. So persuasive was he to Tocqueville that the latter asserted that the principle cause of America’s “singular prosperity and growing strength” was its women, whom he describes as though they had been educated by Rousseau. This analysis will not seem nearly so persuasive today because of the political force of a movement which Rousseau predicted as an almost inevitable result of the bourgeoisification of the world, a tide which he was trying to stem. He saw that rationalism and egalitarianism would tend to destroy the sexual differences just as they were leveling class and national distinctions. Man and woman, husband and wife, parent and child would become roles, not natural qualities; and as in all play-acting, roles can be changed. The only unaltered fragment of nature remaining, and thus dominating, would be the selfish Hobbesian individual, striving for self-preservation, comfort, and power after power…
    [Rousseau] tries to show that male and female bodies and souls fit together like pieces in a puzzle, and he does so in such a way as to make his conclusions compatible with natural science, on the one hand, and freedom and equality on the other. In particular, Rousseau argues that woman rules man by submitting to his will and knowing how to make him will what she needs to submit to. In this way Emile’s freedom of will is preserved without Sophie’s will being denied.”

    A cutting-edge synthesis of feminism and Islam if I ever saw one. The West is in dire need of just such a thing. The altright, Heartiste, Jim, etc. are going overboard on the woman question – their overreaction to feminism is going to lead to an overreaction to them; we’re going to keep bouncing from one extreme pole to another. Monkeys never learn.


    Posted on April 12th, 2017 at 6:41 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment